Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10.

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

“...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.” Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

c. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 195, p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

What would I do without Prof. 'Cum Guzzling" Pahu to provide me with a nonstop source of stentorian canards to complain about? You may be disappointed to hear that my concrete suggestions on how to weaken the critical links in Prof. Pahu's nexus of unbalanced cynicism are sprinkled throughout this letter like raisins in a pudding, not grouped together in a single block of text at the end. This was a conscious decision I made based on the observation that I don't know what bothers me most about Prof. Pahu. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his ruses? In any case, if Prof. Pahu were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that I can reword my point as follows. Prof. Pahu has shown he's not afraid to be loathsome. Of course, there is a lot of debate on this subject but the best scholars avouch that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Prof. Pahu provides none.

Prof. Pahu's accomplices aver that negativism is a wonderful thing. This is precisely the non-equation that Prof. Pahu is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at announcing that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Prof. Pahu before he can work hand-in-glove with stroppy louts. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that I will do my best to build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world. So what's the connection between that and his "compromises"? The connection is that Prof. Pahu's platitudes represent the most disgusting form of moral turpitude conceivable. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to shatter the adage that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter.

That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that if anything, once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that every time Prof. Pahu tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to cover up his criminal ineptitude. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well. By excluding any possibility of comparison, Prof. Pahu can easily pass off his own intimations as works of genius. In that context, one could say that in order to convince us that he is a spokesman for God, Prof. Pahu often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

You can sum up Prof. Pahu's sermons in one word: snotty. Prof. Pahu may not be that officious but he sure is paltry. Although it is regrettable that his loyalists have abdicated reason in this debate and allowed themselves to become captive of his lies, distortions, and hysteria, it is also true that Prof. Pahu regards the exception as the rule, the criminal as the hero, the loser as the winner, and the winner as the oppressor. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too dissolute to dwell on short of saying that I'm not afraid of Prof. Pahu. However, I am concerned that he is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Prof. Pahu and a pigeon is that Prof. Pahu intends to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. That's why Prof. Pahu complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

The great irony is that Prof. Pahu accuses me of being rotten whenever I state that we must do away with the misconception that particularism forms the core of any utopian society. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Prof. Pahu's squadristi are quick to point out that because Prof. Pahu is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Prof. Pahu is a victim of his own success—a success that enables Prof. Pahu to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Did it ever occur to him that his treatises are enmeshed in priggism? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: Society must soon decide either to rake him over the coals for fueling inquisitions or else to let Prof. Pahu twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that Prof. Pahu has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his band loyal to him. His principal myth is that he can override nature. The truth is that Prof. Pahu loves generating drama and conflict. That's why he repeatedly insists that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. It's also why he believes in anesthetizing the human spirit.

This is not to say that Prof. Pahu gets his cause-and-effect relationships all mixed up. It is merely to point out that Prof. Pahu's claim that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. He thinks it's good that his commentaries exhibit cruelty to animals. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He has long been denigrating and discarding all of Western culture. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Prof. Pahu ever manages to peddle the snake oil of empty-headed, superstitious jingoism, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: It may seem at first that he should exercise greater judiciousness when extolling mandarinism. When we descend to details, however, we see that Prof. Pahu is like a jellyfish in that you can't see his stings coming. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, he keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that you and I are inferior to adversarial stirrers. The purpose of this deception may be to develop mind-control technology. Or maybe the purpose is to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. Oh what a tangled web Prof. Pahu weaves when first he practices to deceive.

Efforts to operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and fastidious oligarchism are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Prof. Pahu's heart. Prof. Pahu is not your average drossy utopian. He's the deluxe model. As such, he's poised to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values sooner than you think. It has been said that being forced to listen to Prof. Pahu yap on and on about cameralism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt. I believe that to be true. I also believe that he believes that it is everyone's obligation to force us to do things or take stands against our will. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.

Prof. Pahu's myrmidons get so hypnotized by his simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what he is really saying. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret his true intentions—part of the myth that he perpetuates is that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that one does not have to make bribery legal and part of business as usual in order to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. It is a scary person who believes otherwise. Sure, the things Prof. Pahu does are wrong, haughty, peremptory, indecent—you name it. But he keeps insisting that it is pouty to question his ravings. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Prof. Pahu has no innate compass for judging what is proper behavior and what is unacceptable. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that when one examines the ramifications of letting Prof. Pahu demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that his rancorous nostrums can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

For the most part, Prof. Pahu's excuses are wrong for the same reason that drug use, adultery, lust, murder, and lying are wrong. Still, Prof. Pahu had previously claimed that he had no intention to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would dominate or intimidate others. We all know what happened then. Now, Prof. Pahu would have us believe he'd never ever convince people that their peers are already riding the "Cum Guzzling' Pahu bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Prof. Pahu would have us believe that human life is expendable. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

Prof. Pahu's diatribes are extensive and frequent and are laden with orchidaceous words like 'parthenogenetic' and 'microcinematographic'. Now take that to the next level: At the heart of the problem is Prof. Pahu's obliviousness to history, his moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and his overwhelmingly shallow political posturing. End of story. Actually, I should add that he fervently believes that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Prof. Pahu's secret police have been seen institutionalizing alarmism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. Prof. Pahu claimed he would take responsibility for this politically incorrect behavior, but in fact he did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that Prof. Pahu indubitably intends to draw unsuspecting drug addicts into the orbit of unmannerly, soporific swindlers. The direful sequence of that result, so flagrantly misguided and merciless in itself, is that detestable madmen will shame the poor into blaming themselves for losing the birth lottery in the coming days. Last but not least, Prof. "Cum Guzzling' Pahu's inerudite opinions cater to the lowest common denominator.

__________________Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory...” Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

Yo dawg, I heard you like spamming fundy bullshit so I put some spam in your spam thread so you can fuck off while you proselytize.

I got this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pahu

I wish I didn't have to write a letter like this one, but recent events leave me no choice. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for Mr. Charles Darwin's benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that responsibility is an alien concept to Mr. Darwin. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that I'd like very much to respond to Mr. Darwin's claim that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Unfortunately, taking into account Mr. Darwin's background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Mr. Darwin would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: I don't see how Mr. Darwin can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that it's unfortunate that Mr. Darwin has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped.

Mr. Darwin uses obscure words like "philodestructiveness" and "counterrevolutionary" to conceal his agenda to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that Mr. Darwin is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of the worst sorts of slimy ingrates there are, I believe that we can then avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to drain the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play. Nevertheless, we need to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to ask the tough questions and not shy away from the tough answers.

Unfortunately, most people have been so brainwashed by Mr. Darwin's phlegmatic vituperations that when push comes to shove they'll end up siding with Mr. Darwin. That's why we must take the lemons that he's handing us and make lemonade. At first blush, it appears that it would be better for him to do nothing than to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. However, he says that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. Yet he also wants to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his fairy tales are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by insurrectionism to transform our whole society to suit his own malevolent interests. That's not something that we learn in school—though it should be. That's not something that we emote about while watching movies and TV shows—though it should be. What it is is something that tells us loudly and clearly that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Mr. Darwin encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization or, alternatively, whether we should get us out of the hammerlock in which he is holding us. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that while Mr. Darwin manufactures crises over exclusionism, his band has been viewing countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated.

The first thing we need to do is to get Mr. Darwin to admit that he has a problem. He should be counseled to recite the following:

* I, Charles Darwin, am a shambolic fault-finder.
* I have been a participant in a giant scheme to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it.
* I hereby admit my addiction to philistinism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.

Once Mr. Darwin realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he'll see that I would like to give you an example of how vexatious he can be. Mr. Darwin has admitted that he intends to quash other people's opinions. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example, but ever since Mr. Darwin decided to turn the world's most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror, his consistent, unvarying line has been that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy.

The facts are, succinctly, these: First, a careful appraisal of Mr. Darwin's sophistries raises some thought-provoking issues. Second, if he can't cite the basis for his claim that he should mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against him because "it's the right thing to do" then he should just shut up about it. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how it may not be easy to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that Mr. Darwin's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that this is an exceptionally convincing illustration of the power wielded by Mr. Charles Darwin and of the destructive way in which he uses that power.

__________________Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.